agenda...agenda m arquette c ity p lanning c ommission tuesday, june 7th, 2020 at 6:00 p.m....

AGENDA MARQUETTE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 7th, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.

Conducted Remotely via Zoom MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

1) ROLL CALL 2) APPROVE AGENDA 3) APPROVE MINUTES

- Minutes of 05-19-2020 and 06-02-2020 4) CONFLICT of INTEREST

1. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. 13-SUP-07-2020 - 136 W. Washington St., Application for Distillery

2. CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS 3. OLD BUSINESS

4. NEW BUSINESS

A. 18-SPR—07-2020 – Site Plan Review for Beacon House 5. CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

6. CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MINUTES OF OTHER BOARDS/COMMITTEES

A. Planning-Zoning Division Report for three weeks ending June 26th 7. WORK SESSION ON REPORTS/PLANS/ORDINANCES

8. COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS

9. ADJOURNMENT

Public Hearings The order of presentation for a public hearing shall be as follows:

a. City Staff/Consultants b. Applicant c. Correspondence d. Public Testimony e. Commission Discussion (Commissioners should state any ex-parte contact, if it

occurred, prior to entering into discussion or voting on a case).

Public Comment A member of the audience speaking during the public comment portion of the agenda shall limit his/her remarks to 3 minutes. Time does not need to be reserved for an item of business listed on the agenda, or otherwise addressed under Item #2, as time is provided for public comment for each item of business.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT For Immediate Release July 1, 2020

For More Information: City Planning Office / 225-8103 / [email protected]

JULY 7th PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PARTICIPATION

The July 7th Planning Commission meeting will be held virtually with Commission members and Staff attending remotely through Zoom video conferencing.

This meeting will be streamed on the City of Marquette YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofMarquetteGov). Please note that the YouTube livestream will have at least a 20 second delay.

Public Participation

There will be three options for public participation in this meeting: video conferencing, phone conferencing, or written comment. There will be three public comment periods for the meeting, one at the beginning, one during the public hearing request, and one at the end. Comments will be limited to three minutes and speakers must give their name and address.

Members of the public wishing to make a video comment will need to visit: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83138530059 Members of the public wishing to call in and make a comment over the phone will need to call 312-626-6799 and enter the meeting ID (8631 3853 0059).

The video and phone conference lobby will open at 5:50 p.m. on July 7th, 2020. When participating via video or phone conferencing, you will be placed into a virtual lobby/on-hold until the Public Comment portions of the meetings are reached. Once Public Comment begins, the Chair will go through each person waiting in the lobby one at a time and provide them with the opportunity to address the Commission. It is recommended that participants follow the meeting on YouTube to know when the Public Comment portion is occurring and be ready to make their comment.

Written comments can be submitted by emailing [email protected]. Written submissions will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7th, 2020.

# # # # # # #

mailto:[email protected]://www.youtube.com/user/CityofMarquetteGovhttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/89937079955https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83138530059mailto:[email protected]

Marquette City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 05-19-2020 Page 1 of 13

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARQUETTECITY PLANNING COMMISSION

May 19, 2020

A regular meeting of the Marquette City Planning Commission was duly called and held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19th, 2020 by remote means (due to the COVID-19 pandemic).

ROLL CALL Present: W. Premeau, J. Koehs, A. Ruiz, S. Mittlefehldt, Vice-Chair M. Larson, A. Andres, M. Dunn, Chair J. CardilloAbsent: E. Brooks

AGENDA It was moved by M. Larson, seconded by A. Andres, and carried 8-0 to approve the agenda with the addition of correspondence for item 1A.

MINUTES The minutes from 4-21-2020 were approved with a suggested change to an error in one of referenced LDC sections in a motion that did not pass, and the minutes of 5-5-2020 were approved as presented.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST No certain or potential conflicts of interest were expressed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 09-SUP-05-2020 - 1090 S. Front St., Recreational Marijuana Retailer

Zoning Official A. Landers stated that staff has reviewed the Special Land Use permit for a Marijuana Retailer located at 1090 S. Front Street, and she also stated attached is the Staff File Review/Analysis and explained the contents and showed materials included with the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review applications, including the applications, staff comments and applicant’s narrative responses, the applicant’s pre-qualification letter for a marijuana license, the site plan, photos, maps. She also stated there was correspondence received after the agenda was posted, yesterday, and she read the correspondence from Nick Peidmonte of Fresh Coast Provisioning LLC. She also stated that City Planner and Zoning Administrator D. Stensaas will comment on the item added to the agenda, regarding the MDOT right of way, when he joins the meeting.

Myron Berry, the applicant, stated that he wanted to address the two concerns that he heard, one was a concern mentioned about the people across the street who have also applied for such a permit and of course they do not want competition. He also stated that he did check with the city and assured there is nothing in the City rules and regulations that say they cannot have two facilities across the street from each other. He stated they have proceeded in good faith believing they would be able to have a facility permitted within the City of Marquette. He also stated the second point is the access management. He stated they would prefer to have access off of Front Street and it is something they can work on. He also stated it is not something that is vital to their business and they can still have a traffic flow without it. He stated at this point it is a non-issue because they will deal with it. He also stated if that changes then they are going to have to change their landscape plan because that area would have to be landscaped. He also stated they have been working with the City on these issues and he does not see either one of those issues preventing them from moving forward.

Mike Bahoura, stated that he was an attorney for the applicant – Larren Investments, and stated he reviewed the ordinance and as far as he could see there is not anything in the ordinance that has specific separation or buffering requirements between facilities. He also stated that he does not blame Fresh Coast for saying that they do not want another facility right across the street and he can appreciate where they are coming from, but it is not in anybody’s best interests by eliminating healthy and free market competition. He stated across the state and probably the county there are going to be plenty of vacant buildings coming up, and the marijuana industry is growing and thriving, so hopefully the City of Marquette will be able to take advantage of this and look at this an opportunity to fill up at least one vacant building.

DRAF

T


A. Ruiz asked when they are looking to become operational. Mr. Bahoura stated assuming they get approval and they can get permits it is usually anywhere from 90 to 120 days after they have building permits. He also stated there are some backups with some of the contractors, as they are trying to finish up some of their previous projects that kind of got put on hold with the pandemic. He stated 120 days is safe but their goal is 90 days to be operational. He also stated once construction is done they submit their request for inspections from the MRA. M. Dunn asked about the licensing and the different steps. He also stated that the City’s code calls for provisional license, but then the letter refers to being pre-qualified and asked the applicant to explain the process. Mr. Bahoura stated the only way that you can obtain a pre-qualification for adult use, which is what this application is for, is that you have to have an operating medical facility and those people are kind of fast-tracked. He also stated that Larren Investments has an operating medical facility in the city of Warren, for cultivation, so they were able to get pre-qualification relatively quickly. He stated the next step is basically the state says you are prequalified and then you just tell us a place to set up shop and we submit the necessary documents that are site specific to Marquette, the building, insurance, a letter from the Planning Commission allowing it. He also stated they submit all of those documents and they have an inspection and make sure that the cameras are in place and all of the security stuff is in order, and then they pay an invoice for $44,000 and then have one year and have to renew it every year. M. Dunn stated the fan size is determined by the cubic feet of the building, and in the code it does say the cubic feet of the building, but in the application it looks like it was based on the retail sales square footage and asked why it was done that way. Mr. Bahoura stated that he is not sure if that is a question for himself or Myron, but if it is perhaps it is an oversight. He also stated that they are happy to make sure that is correct and the Planning Commission could make that a condition if that is an issue. M. Dunn stated that there was a request to have temporary loading area allowed and he would like more info on that. Mr. Berry stated the temporary loading area is something that the code allows and all that it means is that it is an area where people stop, drop stuff and leave right away so they are not going to have semis coming and parking for hours at a time. M. Dunn stated that the loading area is not changing over time and asked if they are always going to be using the same area, just used on a temporary basis. Mr. Berry stated that is correct. Mr. Bahoura stated it is not like Kroger or Meijer where you are going to have delivery trucks, and deliveries are not very frequent. He also stated that temporary is not temporary on the site it is temporary as in they will not be using it that much because the nature of the deliveries is not as frequent as some other retailers. J. Cardillo asked if Mr. Berry would be the actual operator of the establishment. Mr. Berry stated his role is engineer, architect and designer. Mr. Bahoura stated that he is not the operator but they have multiple facilities and have a team. He also stated that he is not sure if there has been a person specifically designated for Marquette just yet and they will probably be looking to hire locally. He stated that Larren Investments is based in Oakland County. He also stated as they have done in Alma and Madison Heights and some other cities, they will initially have a team from one of their operating facilities come to Marquette to train, but probably 95% or 100% of the employees including management will be local residents. A. Ruiz asked if it is Mr. Bahoura’s entity that will actually be licensed and running the facility. Mr. Bahoura stated that it will not be his entity, he is an attorney and he represents Larren Investments. He also stated that he states “we” because it is a client but also it is a relative and they have other sites that they do together and he actually owns a dispensary in Lapeer and he helps manage that. He stated that he is very familiar with the business, not just on the legal side, but he is also active in the space and is very comfortable answering these questions. He also stated that it is not him per se, and Larren Investments is owned by Mr. Ivan Ammori who specifically asked if he needed to come to this meeting, and if he is needed he can get him on the phone. A. Ruiz asked if the client is looking to hold the property for long term. Mr. Bahoura stated yes, and they are already operational, so they have no intent to do anything other than operate in Marquette and they think it is going to be a fantastic market for adult use. J. Cardillo stated there was a comment from the arborist regarding the landscaping and it was indicated that they would be adding an area for planting and asked if that was indicated on the plans. Mr. Berry stated that it is not shown on the plans right now. A. Landers stated that staff is asking for it to be on the revised set of plans. J. Cardillo stated that she is wondering where it is going to be located. Mr. Berry stated that it is going to be over on the west side and there will be a 10 x 60 area set aside. He also stated that

DRAF

T


there is a 20-foot strip of parking lot to the west of the building there and they are going to put their in parking lot planting in that strip. D. Stensaas stated that he wanted to clarify a couple of things. He also stated that the document that was added to the agenda is about the frontage on Front Street and stated the MDOT concern is related to one of the curb cuts. He stated that the Front Street access is sort of a hazard and maybe the solution there is to make that an exit only access point. He also stated it is their right of way so ultimately if they want something there the applicants are going to have to comply with that. He stated the other thing is the landscaping on that side. He also stated that MDOT has said there is probably not enough room for street trees and there are plantings already in the corridor seasonally. J. Cardillo opened the public hearing. No one wished to comment so the public hearing was closed.

It was moved by A. Ruiz, seconded by M. Dunn, and carried 8-0 to suspend the rules for discussion.

A. Ruiz stated that they just approved Fresh Coast last week and he tends to agree with Mr. Bahoura that competition is good and it will drive prices down and create less of a monopoly. He also stated maybe it will be a boom to the south side. He stated if the Land Development Code does not have any type of buffering that is inherent right now he does not see any reason to rely on that or any other argument pertaining to overcrowding to preclude them from the area. S. Mittlefehldt stated that she does not think that there is anything in the Land Development Code that has any buffers, so unfortunately for the Fresh Coast people there is no teeth to that argument and if we approved the last one we have to approve this one and maybe buffering is something that they look at down the road, but there is not any discussion for this one. J. Cardillo stated she feels like the City Commission was pretty clear that they did not want to put a cap on number or proximity. She also stated when they made this code they set out the districts where it was allowable, so she does not see what grounds they would use to not approve this based on that argument. M. Dunn asked staff if they noticed about the square footage calculation for the fans. D. Stensaas stated that he did not pick up on that. Ms. Landers stated that they said that they would meet the requirements. J. Cardillo stated that they can put that in as a condition. D. Stensaas stated that fan the issue was raised by another one of the retail marijuana shop owners in the area after the code was approved, and he made a comment that the standard for the whole building was extreme overkill, so that is something that they might need to look at adjusting with the code text in the future. M. Dunn stated in regard to the MDOT access point and the curb cut, and also the landscaping along that side, do they need any kind of condition in there or is that automatic that they are going to have to work with MDOT and the City Arborist. Ms. Landers stated that they are asking for a revised plan to meet staff comments and they could also add “to meet MDOT comments”. D. Stensaas stated that it would be good to address that just saying generally to work with the City and MDOT on the access recommendations for Front Street.

It was moved by A. Ruiz, seconded by M. Larson and carried 8-0 that after review of the site plan set dated April 17, 2020, with supplemental documentation and the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 09-SUP-05-20, the Planning Commission finds that the request meets the intent and requirements of the Land Development Code Sections 54.1403, 54.1402, and 54.628, and hereby approves 09-SUP-05-20 with the following conditions:

1. That an amended plan is submitted to meet staff and MDOT comments. 2. That the filtration system fans meet the requirements.

OLD BUSINESS A. 04-SUP-04-2020 - 1009 W. Bluff St., 40’ Wireless Facility Tower Zoning Official A. Landers stated at the April 21, 2020, Planning Commission meeting the following motion was made after a public hearing for a request for a Special Land Use permit for a wireless communications

DRAF

T


tower facility (40-ft high monopole tower and equipment platform) located at 1009 W. Bluff Street was held:

It was moved by A. Ruiz, seconded by E. Brooks, and carried unanimously (9-0) to postpone this item to May 19th, 2020 or a date subsequent that can the applicant can be ready for so the applicant can provide additional information regarding additional towers in the area that were not part of the list that was provided, information about how close other towers in the area and how close residences are to them, as well as information or an analysis as to the current capacity of other towers and the need for further towers such as this, based on sections 54.644.A(4 and 5) of the Land Development Code.

A. Landers also stated the new attachments were:

• Additional Correspondence received 5-11-20 from M. Dawson • Additional Correspondence received 5-12-20 from J. Remington, Husch Blackwell • Additional Correspondence that was received after the agenda was posted for the April 21st meeting and read into the record at the meeting • April 21st agenda case file

Jake Remington, attorney with Husch Blackwell LLP for the applicant, stated they submitted a letter to the Planning Commission that is in the packet and reviewed what was included in the letter and its attachments. Mustafa Siamof, Radio Engineer for Verizon, stated that he has been a RF Engineer for almost thirty years so he has an extensive background in different technologies that have been deployed over the years. He also stated traditionally they get their service out using cell sites and the idea is that they are putting cell sites where they have a need. He stated basically they try and identify areas of concern and those areas of concern can be performance related such as areas of poor coverage which would lead to dropped calls, or they could be capacity issues such as slow internet, choppy video when they talk about data throughput speeds. He also stated as is the case with the “Marquette Golf Club” site, as we are calling this site, this site is a capacity issue site. He stated it is a site that about four or five years ago they trended their data usage at that site and they saw that at some point when they extrapolate into future use based on the growth they anticipated the sites that were existing were going to experience some blocking or some slow throughput speeds for data users. He also stated based on that information they identify where the traffic is coming from in the geographical area and this site was determined based on traffic that was originated off of Marquette east in the commercial area right around Washington Street and along US-41. He stated they can see where the data usage and it is generically plotted out in bins and based on that information they try to put the site where the traffic is. He also stated then they will open a search ring and give that to the site acquisition people so they can take the search ring and see if they can find first of all an existing structure which is what they are always trying to shoot for. He stated they like to use existing structures because it gets them faster to market and up for customers to use sooner and it is also typically most cost effective was of deploying their system. He also stated at that point the site acquisition people will go out and try to locate some type of existing structure that they can use and if no existing structures are available then they will look at raw land as a fallback. He stated basically they are trying to find a location that meets the technical needs of the community in terms of providing what they expect from Verizon which is good throughput speeds on their network. He also stated he would like to make clear that Verizon does not make money from building sites, basically they make money from subscriber base and to build a subscriber base they have to have a comprehensive good network everywhere and that is what they strive for. He stated the decision to add a new location is not taken lightly within Verizon and there is a lot of cost associated with it and it is definitely scrutinized very carefully within Verizon how they spend money to put sites in areas to serve the public need. He also stated that is basically what their intent is and he wanted to make clear that this not done frivolously and they put a lot of effort and thought into where they put their sites to make it as cost effective and least impactful to the community in terms of where the site is placed. Guy Stewart, representing the applicant, stated at their last hearing there were some questions about where they have looked and why they ended up with this site. He also stated that he did send a map of the area that he focused on. He stated when he is given a site from Verizon the first thing they do try and find an existing site because that is the quickest to market, easiest zoning and it just makes the most sense. He also stated when he first got this site he did look at and spend a lot of time on the south side of US-41 because that is a very nice commercial area. He stated when he first talked to zoning several years ago he

DRAF

T


was made aware that AT&T was denied a site in the Econo Foods area because it was within the height ratio of the 300% to residential area and he knew that up front. He also stated when he looked at that property the majority of the land in that whole area on the south side of US-41 is one land owner. He stated that he spent quite a bit of time and they found three different sites that would work to try and get a site that would work for Verizon in this area. He also stated the combination of business terms and tenant issues over in that area did not allow us to do that. He stated he did try and find a site that would work for both the land owner and Verizon and all of those sites did not pan out. He also stated early in this process Anderson Communications was at this current site that they are talking about and they had a communications tower that they wanted to talk to them about. He stated that they did talk with them about giving their existing tower to him to work with putting Verizon equipment on. He also stated that they would have to put up a different tower because their equipment is a little bit different and the end result was that they were going to be relocating and dismantling the tower. He stated in this process of going through all of the other due diligence that he did on this site and all of the areas he found out that Anderson had eventually sold the property. He also stated that he then communicated with the new current property owner to see if they could then resurrect the tower site and that is how they ended up with this site. He stated that this was an existing tower site and the new owner was willing to work with us on this site and the location and it worked for Verizon and it worked for the land owner and this does meet the City of Marquette zoning ordinance. M. Dunn asked if all possibilities were exhausted in the nearby industrial and commercial areas. Mr. Stewart stated areas near Washington Street and going to the east are a valley so you start going down into a valley. He also stated the further east you go the closer you are to the Marquette East site that they have which is a monopole just south of Washington Street. He stated not only are you losing elevation you are also getting closer to an existing site. He also stated looking at going west is in a valley and that valley is extending to the west and you are getting closer to an existing tower that is on a water tower. He stated part of the problem is that this is a valley and if you put a site in a valley and you still need to accomplish the same goals that Verizon needs you need to increase the height of the tower. He also stated the combination of those two things eliminate going east and going west. M. Dunn asked if this is the only site that is going to work to provide reliable phone coverage for everyone. He also stated his focus is on the safety of the community and Verizon plays a huge role there with phone communication. He stated that he is not quite as concerned about bandwidth for internet coverage and whether streaming videos are going to come through quickly enough but as far as phone coverage is this site absolutely required. Mr. Stewart stated in terms due diligence and the due diligence that he has done on this site is resulting in this is the best site that he feels that they have available to use in this area, so he would say yes. S. Mittlefehldt stated that she was a little confused because the name in the memo for this week was the Marquette Golf Course which was confusing and asked for clarification. Mr. Stewart stated when they do these projects they look at a macro kind of area and may not know intimately all of the things involved in the area in terms of the names of things so they just look on a map and said, well just call this site Marquette Golf. Mr. Mustafa Siamof stated that it is unfortunate when this site was named. He also stated it was given a name basically because it is smoothing that was at a high zoom level on a map that they could put a pin on. He stated that that the name is kind of misleading in this situation. Mr. Stewart stated the search area that he was given was essentially about a four or five block square on the corner of US-41 and McClellan Avenue. Mr. Mustafa Siamof stated the center of that intersection is the center of their search ring and that is where Mr. Stewart was clustered on, right on that intersection. He also stated going further south would not meet the needs of their customers in terms of traffic off load, it is too far south. He stated if you look and see where all of the businesses are that is where they are targeting because that is where their traffic maps say where traffic is located and that is where they are trying to cover. M. Larson asked if there is a reason that something like a more minimalistic tower is not being considered using water towers or buildings. Mr. Mustafa Siamof stated that they just built a site on the university on Fair Avenue which is on a dormitory building. He also stated that they take advantage of that structure when we can and in that situation it was a tall enough building that was available for them to use. He stated that they actually have two sites on buildings on the campus. He also stated that this site is almost close to a small cell in terms of elevation. He stated that their small cells in Chicago are roughly about 35-feet and they are asking for 40-feet here and in essence this is very similar to a small cell in terms of the height. He also stated what they are gaining from this is the location and the way that the terrain lays out is the added benefit. He stated in reality it mimics in many ways a small cell. He also stated that they are on a water

DRAF

T


tower on their Marquette West site. He stated that they are starting to see densities in this area because of the amount of traffic that they have they need higher site density to serve that traffic. He also stated if you look at the site that they are asking for it is equal distance between sites that are existing; the Marquette West site which is on a water tower and the Marquette East site which is on a monopole right off Washington Street. He stated if you look at those two sites the distance is about 2.5 miles apart with this site right in between the two and located right within that commercial industrial area. He also stated moving to another water tower would be out of the question in terms of serving the needs of what this site is intended to do because the nearest next water tower is way down to the south. He stated those are some of the challenges that they see here. M. Larson asked if efforts could be taken to screen the tower here like was done on the golf course with the Pine tree monopole. Mr. Stewart stated that this is only a 40-foot tower and there was an existing higher tower there already so he does not know from his point of view what would make sense to try and camouflage it. He also stated that he is not sure if it makes sense to try and camouflage this. M. Larson asked if it would be possible to camouflage it. Mr. Stewart asked what he would suggest. M. Larson asked if there are examples of other 40-foot towers that are camouflaged in some particular way. Mr. Stewart stated if you look at the Pine tree pole on the Marquette Golf Course it looks very obviously like a communications tower with some Pine branches on it. He also stated it does not look natural in his opinion so he does not know what else to do. M. Larson stated that he is looking at the zoning ordinance where it is clearly stated that it would be configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of a tower and antenna through careful design, landscape and innovative camouflaging techniques, and that is where his line of questioning is stemming from. Aaron Valley, representing the applicant stated that he thinks that it is all based on the location. He also stated that since this is behind a building it would not make sense to stealth the tower as a Pine tree or a palm tree. He stated it makes sense to use the tower an industrial way because that is where the tower it located, it is in an industrial area. He stated if they stealth it to a Pine tree that is going to be more noticeable because of the location of it. J. Cardillo stated that she wanted to point out that the reason for the tension and the issue with this particular site is because it is adjacent to residential properties on two sides. M. Dunn stated that he just wants to be clear that this is not an industrial zone and it is right next door to a residential zone and in addition to that it is residential use all the way around except for one side. He also stated that he is looking for something that can help them justify having these towers right next to residential zone when there are plenary of things in their Land Development Code that specifically say that they need to protect the residential zone and the residential uses from cell phone towers. Mr. Stewart stated as a reminder this does fit into the zoning ordinance as is why they are here. He also stated that two sides are commercial use on this site. J. Cardillo asked if there were any members of the public that would like to comment on this proposal. Mary Dawson, 1007 W. Bluff St., stated in all of her research and in reaching out to friends, neighbors, residents, local realtors, bankers and appraisers all of whom agreed that a cell tower could negatively impact her property value and her ability to sell her home, was oddly encouraging to her. She also stated just this past Thursday she learned from the Planning Commission that she would need expert witness testimony on the record at the hearing which indicates property value loss. She stated not only was that discouraging but unrealistic and unachievable. She also stated that local appraisers have said they cannot provide the information because there are not any “comparables” in Marquette, and why are there not any comparables, because there are not any cell towers next to properties in the City or surrounding areas. She stated as you can see from the pictures that she submitted there are not any homes next to or near these sites. She also stated large commercial and industrial sites are perfect and preferred and chosen as cell tower sites for good reason. She stated as far as the landscape goes, the revised landscape proposal does not do anything to help with aesthetics. She also stated as was said at the last meeting there is not any way to plant along the east side of the actual fence because it would block the entrance to the site and this is true. She stated Verizon proposed adding five Pine trees to the east side of the property as a good faith gesture, which for the record are not Pine trees. She also stated if you look at the blue print you will see

DRAF

T


that they are set so far back from the entrance along the lot line that they would not provide any immediate visual screening whatsoever and the further from the actual site the less positive aesthetic influence there is. She stated it is like if you planted a shrub in front of the window you would not be able to see in the house but you planted the shrubs on the curb you would have full view of the house for years to come. She also stated in her opinion this is a token gesture on the part of Verizon and it does not address the landscape issue to her satisfaction. She stated she would ask the Planning Commission to refer to article 10, because this is the Land Development Code, landscape and screening, 54.1001, specifically sections A, F and I, and she will quote, “to protect the health safety and general welfare of the pubic by creating an environment that is aesthetic pleasing. To safeguard and enhance property values and to protect public and private investments. To reduce the negative environmental effects of development while protecting the value of developed properties and surrounding areas.” She also stated that the word protect is used in all three of these sections. She stated that she understands that it is the Planning Commission’s duty to protect the interest of Marquette residents will balancing the need for technological advancement but did Verizon really prove to you the need even exists when our Verizon cell service, which she has and is excellent in this area. She stated even if you are convinced is this the one and only site that they can fine. She also stated that Mr. Stewart did this study three years ago on other available locations and she is not convinced that this is the only place in this area that they can put this because it really does affect their property. She stated that she hopes the Planning Commission will seriously consider all of the information that she has presented to them over the past two months, especially all of the work that she did on the Land Development Code, when making their decision. She also stated even with health concerns set aside, the negative visual impact, noise, light and intrusion into their privacy when they maintain this would be too much of a strain on their mental health and welfare and they could not enjoy living here any longer. She stated that she does not want to sell her home and she does not want to move her family. She also stated that she is a longtime resident of Marquette and a law abiding, taxpaying citizen. She stated the basic right to enjoy her home and her property should be protect by the City of Marquette as should the rights of the entire residential neighborhoods. She also stated that she asks for their thoughtful consideration when making this decision. Matthew Dawson, 1007 W. Bluff St., stated perception is reality and whether or not there is an actual health risk issue, perception of risk is what drives a family’s decision whether or not to purchase a home. He also stated based on the available research the majority if individuals which is 94%, do not want to live in a neighborhood with a cell tower. He stated he is pretty certain that you would not want to live with one next door nor would the owners or Red Electric. He also stated in all of the research never once did they come across a person who purposely went out and purchased a home because there was a cell tower next door. He stated the proposed cell tower would be within feet of their property which is a multi-residential zone not an industrial zone and would be 140-feet from where they live which you can see in the pictures. He also stated that they want to enjoy their lives and be able to let his kids out in the yard and working in the gardens. He stated that he wants to sit out on their deck without seeing this every time they walk outside. He also stated that they want to open their windows and not hear constant humming from a tower. He stated that they want to be able to sleep at night without looking the bedroom windows and seeing this monstrosity or the light from the tower, regardless of the cutoff shields. He also stated that their house is on the west side of the lot or nearly every window on both of the floors would have a view of this tower. He stated think about the intrusion of their privacy when they perform maintenance which is one to four times a month and it is usually at night and as they climb up that tower they can see directly into their bedroom windows. He also stated although the Planning Commission cannot base a decision on possible health issues caused by the RF radiation, their decision whether or not to live here is based on potential health risks to their family and they do not want to be stressed wondering if they are being exposed to serious health risks that they have no control over. He stated that his girls already lost their mother to breast cancer so they are already susceptible to the cancer gene and he is not willing to risk their health. He also stated in their opinion they would be forced to make a decision to put the house and these apartments up for sale and the apartments generate revenue to his mom which contributes to her overall income and will she even be able to find a buyer and if she does will she be forced to drop the price. He stated and while they are waiting to sell it what about their tenants, or will they be able to find new tenants or will she have to drop the rent as a result of this. He also stated that he asks the Planning Commission to consider the injustice, why should the interest of a multibillion dollar company and a property owner’s financial gain be allowed at their expense. He stated that he understands free enterprise but what about the right to enjoy their home, their property and their neighborhood, doesn’t the City have an obligation to protect their rights as well. He also

DRAF

T


stated the apartment buildings provide important missing middle housing options for the community which are an important tax base. He stated that he recommends that Verizon find an available alternative; a less intrusive site than the proposed location. He also stated finally, aren’t they entitled to the same considerations as families living in a full residential zoned neighborhood. He stated that his mom has lived in this house for 30-years and he and his girls moved back in 2018 after their mom passed and shortly after his father passed away. He also stated that he grew up in Marquette in this house and they love this City. He stated again, this is now his home and this proposed cell tower would negatively affect all of their welfare, wellbeing, piece of mind and ultimately force them to move. He also stated please do not let this happen to their family. None else wished to comment so J. Cardillo closed the public hearing.

It was moved by M. Dunn, seconded by A. Ruiz, and carried 7-1 to suspend the rules for discussion.

M. Dunn asked staff if the nonspecific special use criteria still applies and in addition the specific tower requirements as well. D. Stensaas stated that is absolutely correct on both counts. He also stated the challenge with the nonspecific issues is to specify something that a majority of the Planning Commission really feels is significant. M. Dunn stated he certainly has gotten an education as they have gone over this the last couple of weeks and have narrowed his objections dramatically based on the Federal and State laws. He also stated at this point his primary objection is in general the towers being placed next residential properties that are being used regardless of what they are zoned, he is looking at the use of adjacent lands under 54.1403, the current use of adjacent lands and neighborhood are compatible with the proposed use, and he does not believe that they are in this case. He stated the landscaping which is number 4, and of they were not asking for a waiver he would not mention this one, but not only does it not qualify for the parameters of getting a waiver but if the waiver was granted then he would have an objection here on number 4. He also stated number 13, as well, additional neighborhood factors, he is not sure which way to go on this. He stated that his head tells him that there is no doubt that this will have an impact on the property values and they should be able to act on that but from a legal standpoint he does not know if they can consider that or not without the specific site analysis by an expert although they have seen documentation and heard from experts in Federal and State land values in the article that Ms. Dawson submitted. He also stated that the requirements for landscaping in 54.644, number 2 under g, the landscaping, in locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal, the landscaping requirement may be reduced or waived. He stated that obviously the visual impact here is not minimal at least to those residential properties around there and he would argue from Washington Street it is not going to be a minimal visual impact as well. He also stated that he does not feel like those standards have been met and he does not feel like there is any justification for a landscaping waiver. S. Mittlefehldt stated that M. Dunn articulated a lot of what she wanted to bring up. She also stated she came to the same conclusion that M. Dunn did that it seems like they cannot really think about the health issues, that is preempted but the issue of property value is something that they can consider and it looks like Ms. Dawson did go out and get an estimate for what it would take to get a formal real estate appraisal which was $12,000, and part of her was wondering is that realistic for an individual to have to pay that to get numbers, when members of the Planning Commission are realtors. She asked staff what constitutes as expert testimony on real estate value. She also stated in the Community Master Plan it talks about the importance of affordable housing and quality affordable housing. She stated that they are experiencing a housing shortage in Marquette and their first and foremost priority is sticking by the Land Development Code and making sure that is held to, but there are broader community goal outlines and it sounds like the Dawson’s are doing a great job with providing affordable housing and she would hate to see the degradation of the value of that property not only to them as a family but also the services of affordable housing in their community. D. Stensaas stated in the MSU Extension they publish a newsletter with various articles and the analysis of case law and legal opinions about proving property value impacts states specifically that site specific information is required and they did note that having an appraiser testify based on a study or having a mortgage banker testify based on their expert opinion. He also stated the difference there is pretty dramatic a study by an appraiser can be a $12,000, endeavor whereas a mortgage banker could come in and say

DRAF

T


they have data or knowledge to provide and there is a big difference there. He stated the site specific information is important in that regard and it is not all completely settled so they are in a little bit of a grey area on that. J. Cardillo asked if the montage banker appraisal is something that would have to be conducted by Ms. Dawson or is that something the Planning Commission could request. D. Stensaas stated that he is not an expert in this area of law, but it seems like it is site specific either way. He also stated what constitutes expert testimony was defined in that particular newsletter or article in those ways. He stated that is not necessarily the be all and end all to the argument and he does not really have anything else to provide. He also stated he has talked to their attorney about this and that was basically his thoughts that it has to be site specific information not just anecdotal or general studies. M. Larson sated that he would like to bring up section 54.644, a, the very first section its says to protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts. He also stated that it says potential impacts and that could look at property values and they could take a look at the documentation that was submitted by Ms. Dawson there as well and the research that they have done. He stated those show that there could be a potential adverse impact there. He also stated to protect residential areas he is leaning towards this and if this was not immediately adjacent to residential areas this would not be an issue. He stated that they have taken steps to protect other residential areas more recently by not having marijuana in Mixed Use, because of the bordering to residential areas and he thinks this comes along those lines too and with the other points that M. Dunn brought up about like land uses whether it is compatible or not and he does not know that it is. A. Andres stated whether it is intentional or not, he thinks that they are focusing on one specific parcel or resident and not looking the bigger picture and how it would improve the quality of the cell phones and video signals throughout the whole community not just impacting one residence. He also stated that yes it is unfortunate that they live right next door and he sympathizes with them for their issue but he thinks the Verizon folks and everyone else have reiterated the fact that this is the location where they have justified it to be in and it cannot be anywhere else. He stated why not focus on the improvement of the whole community not just the negativity one particular resident. A. Ruiz stated ask if someone can confirm or deny that three years ago there was another tower there. D. Stensaas stated that there was a tower there but he does not have any specific information about what it was or where it went and when it was removed. Mr. Stewart stated when he first started this project the did communicate with Anderson Communications and they did have a ROHN tower on that property and he was in communications and negotiations with them to use that tower in conjunction with the equipment that they were originally going to put together. He also stated that they decided that they were going to relocate and dismantled that tower. He stated that there was a tower there and it was there for quite a good period of time so any of the other neighbors that purchased the property within the last 15 or 20-years probably had that tower existing when they bought that property. A. Ruiz stated that with knowledge there is a potential to look at the bigger picture here but the potential is both big and small. He also stated that property values and unsightliness are all things that were still there just a short while ago. He stated that is a big factor for him when looking at this decision because there was a tower there just a few years ago. He also stated while maybe some of the neighboring homeowners got their expectations up when they got rid of the tower for good, it obviously it looks like the intent was for this to be short term. J. Koehs stated she is thinking that just because something was unsightly at one point and it improved why would you want an eyesore to be put back in its place. She also stated she does not agree with that argument. W. Premeau stated that tower has been there and it was not just used for armature radio. He also stated in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s they had radios in their trucks that worked off of Anderson Communications and they had those in their trucks until they came out with the bag phone. He stated that the tower was there for a long time and it was used for commercial purposes. He also stated right down the street he thinks that there are telephone poles which are higher than this tower almost. He stated that down Fourth Street where BLP ran their primary lines there are huge poles the same way, monopoles. He also stated when you talk about property values, the property value of a commercial building like an apartment is

DRAF

T


based on rents, it is income and nobody is going to buy a building or pay any more than they can get the renters to pay off and make it profit. He stated that he believes that the tower was there and it was there all of those years and besides that this meets the intent of the ordinance and when it meets the ordinance they have to pass it is his understanding but they can put conditions on it. He also stated that the elevation is going to be 1.2-feet above the ground which is going to be a long way from a 6-foot fence. He stated that there is a lot of misinformation here. J. Cardillo stated that she is very torn on this one. She also stated that it is hard to acknowledge that this will have property value changes and does not see how that does not fall into their consideration. She stated the other piece of really concerns her and if they did go ahead with approving this she would like to at least, in addition to other conditions, include administrative basically if they are passing a 40-foot tower they could ask for an administrative request to go another 20-feet if they want to co-locate. She also stated that the code encourages co-locating so it is not unreasonable to think that it might happen and that really concerns her. She stated that Ms. Dawson did a good job advocating for herself when she pointed out that. Once the 40-foot tower goes up they can ask for 20-feet more and that you have to use the original distance separation which was based on 40-feet, so if it were to go to 60-feet it would be a violation of that 300% of the height, however you are not allowed to use that consideration and can only use the 40-foot consideration. She also stated that really bothers her and she feels like it is a loophole. Mr. Valley stated that Verizon is not in this business to make money off of co-locations, they are in this business to provide service. He also stated that the 40-foot height of the tower is what Verizon needs to extend their network to grow their network based on the needs of this area. He stated Verizon is not looking to find additional co-locators they are looking to only expand their network. J. Cardillo stated that she understands that and this is not about being against Verizon expanding their network. She also stated that her issue is that it is literally written into the code that they want to encourage co-location and that they have a tower they want to have more people using that tower so they do not have to build additional towers. She stated to her if they are building a tower it is not unreasonable to think that there might be co-location at a future date. She also stated it is 6-42, in the code speaks of the height and it also speaks to requesting to move it 50-feet without having to look at the distance location. She stated that she realizes that those are both hypothetical but she is also the one that brought to the table that you could build a 40-foot building at the setback line so for her it is important to think of all of these hypothetical as moving forward. She also stated with that being said she does not think that they can add a condition to say that you cannot have that additional tower, but what potentially they could do is add a condition saying that should they request additional height that they would suggest and encourage the administrative staff to not approve that. She stated for her that is a big concern because she does not want to see this tower going 60-feet being right next to a residential district given the proximity that it is to the residential district. A. Andres asked if that is something that they can ask administration to actually do. J. Cardillo stated that she believes that it would be acceptable for them as a condition to say that they would strongly encourage that no increases in height be allowed for this tower or no site relocation as it is something that they would have to approve on an administrative level but it would not come to the Planning Commission again. A. Andres stated just because the Planning Commission encourages it does not mean that they can legally follow along with it. J. Cardillo stated that she is doing this based on the fact that they were not able with the last tower on Washington Street to get them to not add that additional height. D. Stensaas stated that it was not under the same part of the code but that also came under a preemption for existing facilities. He also stated that he thinks it is a good idea what is being suggested. M. Dunn stated it is his own personal belief that this is not the only property that could satisfy the needs of Verizon and the ability to prove additional coverage both for Verizon and the citizens of Marquette. He also stated he thinks that they need to get this right. He stated that if they are going to allow this tower adjacent to residential uses they are setting a precedent that is going to be very difficult to go against in the future. A. Andres stated that the precedent already exists in what W. Premeau stated about the radios in the past. M. Dunn stated that he does not care what was there before and it does not matter to him He also stated he is talking about what they do right now and what happens in the future. He stated his concern is that there are so many preemptions and so many Federal and State laws and for good reason because they want to encourage telecom facilities, and that is in everybody’s best interest; however, it does not make sense next

DRAF

T


to a residential property. He also stated that he and M. Larson have pointed out specific parts in the code where it does not meet the standards. He stated to just make a blanket statement that says this satisfies the ordinance is not correct. He also stated that they have already stated very specific where it does not satisfy. He stated even if they do this with some kind of condition he thinks that they are setting a precedence that is going to be very difficult to go against in the future. M. Larson stated that he would agree and despite there being a tower on there in years past, they went through the Land Development Code and worked to set this up in order to protect residential areas and land uses. He also stated that this is trying to protect that and it is trying to protect adjacent lands to this particular site on this particular issue. He stated that they looked at it and this is what they agreed on so he does not think that it meets all parts of the code, it does meet some parts of the code and that’s fine, but there are these specific pieces in 54.644 A and E, that do matter and if they say that they want to protect residential areas and then they do go down that road the next one that comes up will use this site as an example. He also stated that he does agree with M. Dunn on that.

It was moved by M. Dunn, seconded by A. Ruiz, and approved 5-3 that after review of the site plan dated 3-5-2020 and received 3-10-2020, with supplemental documentation and the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 04-SUP-04-20, the Planning Commission finds that the request does not meet the intent and standards of the Land Development Code, based on section 54.1403(C), subsections (2) Use of Adjacent Lands, (4) Landscaping, and (13) Additional Neighborhood Factors, specifically property values in the neighborhood; section 54.644(A) Purpose, subsections (1) Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of towers and antennas, (2) Encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas; and section 54.644 (E)(2), subsection (b) – the general statement, which refers to section 45.1403 - and subsection (b)(iii) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. Yes: M. Larson, J. Koehs, M. Dunn, S. Mittlefehldt, J. Cardillo No: A. Andres, A. Ruiz, W. Premeau

NEW BUSINESS A. 11-SPR-05-2020 - 933 N. Lakeshore Blvd., Veterinary Clinic Zoning Official A. Landers stated the proposed site plan is for the for the construction of a two-story veterinary clinic building, parking lot, grading, and site improvements for 933 Lakeshore Boulevard, and has provided comments regarding the plan. She also stated attached is the Staff File Review/Analysis or more specific information regarding the application and site plan. She showed materials included with the application, including the application, site plan, photos, maps, staff comments and applicant responses, She stated that staff recommends the following condition of approval - that an amended plan is submitted to meet staff comments. David Nyberg, the property owner and applicant, stated the plan for this business operation has been a long process and he wants to emphasize that they put a lot of thought in being intentional about making sure that this is a community focused business that blends into the neighborhood and is a good fit in which they are proposing to operate. Tracy Nyberg, veterinarian and business operator, stated when they moved here nine years ago when she graduated from Michigan State College of Veterinary Medicine and she has been practicing small animal medicine since then. She also stated it became a dream several years ago to find a location like this that was central in a neighborhood community that they could integrate and become a part of as a practice. She stated they have been working very hard on making the building and construction that will fit the neighborhood be part of the community and almost look like a house more than a business. She also stated they want to be able to welcome owners and their pets to the small animal only practice, there will be no boarding and it will be a 9 to 5 business that they want to operate there. Andrew Mansfield, stated it is a 0.75-acre site and they are looking to build a two-story veterinary clinic. He also stated that the building is just under 3,500-square feet and because it is currently a vacant parcel they will be running new utilities for water, sewer, gas and electric as well. He stated in addition to the building

DRAF

T


they have a small parking lot that has approximately fourteen spaces but only eleven are required. He also stated that the building is just under 26-feet tall at the height point of the peek and to the measure point of the roof they are only at about 19-feet tall. He also stated that it is kind of a residential looking building to blend in with the area. S. Mittlefehldt stated that she lives within 300-feet of this proposed facility. She also stated that Dr. Nyberg reached out to her which shows how committed they are trying to build community relationships and blending into the community asking if she had any questions and letting her know that this was coming. She stated that she just wanted to say that she had ex parte communication with Dr. Nyberg. She also stated that she totally supports this and thinks that it is a great example and they can point to this when they talk about mixed use development and how to integrate commercial uses into residential areas. She stated that it is a great example not just in the design but also in the process how they have reached out to neighbors. She also asked where the medical waste will go. Dr. Nyberg stated sharps are disposed into a sharps container that will be picked up and with euthanasia there will be a cremation service that comes to pick up the bodies and they will be stored in the freezer room. She also stated any materials from surgeries are also picked up and will be taken to an incinerator to be disposed of. She stated that there is really not any chemical waste that results from a veterinary practice. She also stated that they are not going to be cremating animals there. She stated feces and urine are the only other waste whether it be in the yard that will be cleaned up on a regular basis or they have a drain system in the kennel for rinsing out and cleaning the kennel room. S. Mittlefehldt asked about an outdoor space for the animals. Dr. Nyberg stated there will not be animals out running around and there are not runs outside. She also stated if there are any patients in the hospital they will be taken out and there is a green space in the back for going to the bathroom which will be cleaned up immediately and the animals brought back in town. She stated that noise is a big consideration in the design process along with waste and sight of the whole surrounding area. She also stated there is the pedestrian corridor in the back and then the bike path in the front so there is traffic along all four edges. S. Mittlefehldt stated there are a lot of dog walkers that go from the pedestrian corridor over to the bike path and they use that vacant lot as their access point and asked how they will feel about people who potentially could walk across their parking lot. Dr. Nyberg stated that she does not have an issue as long as they are cleaning up and they will have the poop bag stations for cleaning up and even if they are not they will be cleaning it up regularly. Mr. Nyberg stated that they are not going to build a big fence as evidenced in the site plan, recognizing that there are pedestrian corridors around the property and round the site. He also stated that there are some considerations with controlled substances inside the clinic so they have a security apparatus to monitor that and make sure that it protected. He stated they might be inclined to put notices up about it being private property and anybody traversing the property is assuming their risk and things of that nature but they do not have any plans to put a fence up. M. Dunn asked if they are planning on walking dogs across the street at all as well or will it totally just be on their property. Dr. Nyberg stated that they will not take any patients across the street. She also stated that it is a dog friendly beach so if anybody is waiting for their appointment and they are walking and afterwards if they want to go over there they do not have control of that but no patients will be taken over by any employees. S. Mittlefehldt stated the history of the site and it was Lakeshore Engine Works for a long time so she is just wondering if there is remediation that they have to do. Mr. Nyberg stated they built in a condition for the sale for phase one and phase two environmental for the site recognizing that it is an industrial site and nothing alarming came up out of that. He also stated he is interested in the history of the site and he would like to learn more about it. He stated that they agree that the site plan is an improvement to the property which is currently almost entirely an impervious surface and so water runoff and close proximity to Lake Superior so they intend through the site plan to be an improvement for capturing the rain water and the surface water that flows though the site. A. Mansfield stated there is a capture basin that is more for snow runoff and it is an area where in the winter when you pile all of your snow up when it starts to melt in the spring they do not want that to run though the parking lot so they created a small swale there to collect the melt from all of the snow runoff. He also stated the existing site is like 89.5% paved and they are going down to about 30% paved so it is significant decrease in the amount of storm water runoff from the site into the City sewer system.

DRAF

T


S. Mittlefehldt asked if all of the existing pavement is going away. Mr. Mansfield stated that they are going to take out all of the existing pavement and then they are going to build a small parking lot with a couple of access drives and a dumpster pad on the northeast side of the building. He also stated they will re-grade everything and get new pavement in there. S. Mittlefehldt asked if they have an estimated timeline. Dr. Nyberg stated if all goes as planned they should be open by mid to late October of this year. She also stated they have everything lined up and have been very thorough and slow with the process and waiting to roll everything out and now is the time. J. Cardillo asked if there were any members of the public that would like to comment. None wished to comment so J. Cardillo closed the public hearing.

It was moved by M. Larson, seconded by A. Andres, and carried 8-0 that after review of the site plan and the supplemental documentation dated 4-6-20, and the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 11-SPR-05-20, the Planning Commission finds substantial compliance with the City of Marquette Land Development Code and hereby approves the site plan with the following condition that an amended plan is submitted to meet staff comments.

CORRESPONDENCE A. Bi-weekly Reports from Planning-Zoning Division There were no commission questions or comments. COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS There were no commission or staff comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair J. Cardillo at 8:55 p.m.

Prepared by: David Stensaas, City Planner and Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Secretary Imedat/smc DR

AFT


OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARQUETTECITY PLANNING COMMISSION

June 2, 2020

A regular meeting of the Marquette City Planning Commission was duly called and held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2020 by remote means (due to the COVID-19 pandemic).

ROLL CALL Present: W. Premeau, E. Brooks, A. Ruiz, S. Mittlefehldt, Vice-Chair M. Larson, A. Andres, M. Dunn, Chair J. CardilloAbsent: J. Koehs

AGENDA It was moved by A. Andres, seconded by E. Brooks, and carried 8-0 to approve the agenda with the addition of the Draft Minutes of the 5-19-2020 Planning Commission meeting and correspondence for item 1.B.

MINUTES It was moved by S. Mittlefehldt, seconded by E. Brooks, and carried 8-0 to postpone approval of minutes of the 5-19-2020 Planning Commission until their next scheduled meeting.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST No certain or potential conflicts of interest were expressed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 10-SUP-06-2020 - 344 W. Washington St., Recreational Marijuana Retailer

Zoning Official A. Landers stated that staff has reviewed the Special Land Use permit for a Marijuana Retailer located at 344 W. Washington St., and she also stated attached is the Staff File Review/Analysis and explained the contents and showed materials included with the Special Land Use application, staff comments and applicant’s narrative responses, the applicant’s pre-qualification letter for a marijuana license, photos and maps of the site, the site plan, and one item of correspondence.

M. Dunn asked if the comments that the applicant made regarding the hours of operation and saying thatthey were going to follow them is all that they need to do now that they have stated it in the application.A. Landers stated that is something that the Planning Commission will need to discuss, and if the PlanningCommission wants them to set hours to which they must adhere by if it is approved, or if what they areproposing is okay.

S. Mittlefehldt stated that she also had a question for staff about the list of potential nuisances, and it saysto be determined by the Planning Commission, and she stated that none of the Planning Commissionmembers have expertise in this. A. Landers stated that they will have to ask the applicant if they foreseeany nuisances. S. Mittlefehldt asked if they can assume that they are following all of the codes and all of theState requirements of licensing that they have, because that is the assumption that the PlanningCommission is working under. A. Landers stated that is something that the Planning Commission candiscuss with the applicant, to verify to make sure, that is part of the public hearing process. She also statedif they state that they are going to meet all of the codes and if they do not that is where they can look at therevocation of the Special Land Use.

A. Ruiz stated that he has a concern with the property, he was wondering if they did auto work there, and ifan environmental study was needed due to the auto repair that was done there. A. Landers stated that itwas an auto parts store and they are demolishing a portion of the building and are putting in the parking lot.E. Brooks stated that the part of the building being demo-ed was an auto parts storage area, and that theydid have a small machine shop where they made some small parts, but that it wasn’t an auto repair facility.

Matt Treado, of UP Engineers and Architects, representing the applicant stated that they have provided some generic responses on a decent amount of these questions with some of them referring to noise and

DRAF

T


dust. He also stated a lot of that is all handled by the county and in the construction permit they have to meet all of the soil erosion and sedimentation control requirements that the county building permit requires, and they are still required to go through that process and get all of those approvals. He stated a lot of it is redundant depending on which overseeing agency they are following. He also stated that they are still mandated to meet all of those requirements though the county permit, and of course any approvals that are contingent upon the City of Marquette’s final approval. He stated that TriMedia did an environmental assessment on the building prior to the purchase agreement, so all of that has been worked out and there were no environmental contamination issues identified by TriMedia during their process. J. Cardillo asked if Ms. Moore is the owner of the building. Mr. Treado stated he believes that she is the owner and operator. He also stated she is one of the managing partners. Joni Moore stated she is a plant scientist and she was born and raised in Michigan. She also stated that she has been educated in Michigan and has a Bachelor’s Degree in Botany and a Master’s Degree in Forestry. She stated that she has been in the cannabis business for the past five years and she is really excited to be part of the Marquette community where she lives now. She also stated she is also really excited to be part of the cannabis business. M. Dunn asked if the applicant can nail down the hours of operation. Ms. Moore stated they will follow whatever guidelines the City of Marquette asks them to and right now the guidelines are 6 AM to 9 PM. She also stated that they definitely will be within those times, and maybe 9 AM to 9 PM or 9 AM to 8 PM and they have not quite nailed down the exact hours, but those would definitely be within the guidelines that the City of Marquette requests. M. Larson stated that this is only a retail establishment, but they do have a class C grow license in the State of Michigan and asked that if that would be at a different facility other than this. Ms. Moore stated that is correct. She also stated that they have started a grow facility and that is in Humboldt Township. J. Cardillo asked approximately how many employees they think they will have. Ms. Moore stated that she thinks to start it will be about twenty employees and as the operation grows that could be more, up to thirty employees. She also stated that is something that they are going to discover as they go along and as they build their staff. She stated that some will likely be part time and many full time employees. J. Cardillo stated they did have one letter questioning parking. She also stated that it does seem with the demolition of the one portion of the building they will be adding more parking than was there and asked if the applicant had any comments on how they will manage parking should they at times need more parking. Ms. Moore stated they have twelve spaces available and there is also street parking. She also stated that they will be asking employees not to park near the facility so that customers have those spaces available and they are looking into leasing some of the parking spaces that the City has available so that their employees would have access to those. J. Cardillo stated if they are not allocating space for a dumpster how will they handle the trash. Mr. Treado stated that they had discussed the need for a dumpster and had spoken with Keith Garrett who is one of the other managing partners and they did not feel at that time that there was any need for a large scale commercial dumpster. He also stated that does not mean that once get going and if they start generating a lot of trash that they would then come back to the Planning Commission with a revised site plan that shows a dumpster on site, but as of right now they do not believe that something of that capacity is necessary. J. Cardillo asked if there is any trash that is generated from the products or a process with how to deal with that. Ms. Moore stated that there are very specific ways to deal with cannabis waste. She also stated that there would be no waste that would be processed out of this retail center. She stated LARA has very specific ways about how you deal with that and it just cannot go into the garbage, it has to go to a secure facility and has to be ground and mixed with some other products when it is disposed of and none of that would be happening out of this facility. A. Ruiz stated that there will not be any waste from the product itself, but what about packing and other things in terms of the retail products that they are obtain from around the state. He also stated there has to be some waste that is going to be generated from the packaging and boxes that they receive, and asked what the plan is for those things. Mr. Treado stated just traditional City

DRAF

T


of Marquette recycling and garbage carts at this point in time. He also stated if at any point in time they feel like the capacity of what those carts can provide then they will have to come back to the Planning Commission with a dumpster location but based on their conversations with the operations of the facility they do not believe that to be an issue. A. Ruiz asked what they used to guesstimate the amount of waste that they are going to produce. He also stated that most retail facilities produce more waste than the general household and his concern would be that they would have bags on the curb or a lot of yellow and green trash cans that are unsightly. He asked why they feel that the amount of trash that they are going to generate is going to be nominal. Mr. Treado stated the size of the product, the amount of product and the storage that is going to be taking place are for small scale sales of product, and they are not bringing in thousands of pounds of product on a weekly basis, and this is a facility that is going to be selling things on a smaller scale. He also stated that they did not run a garbage calculation spreadsheet to make sure that they are not going to be far exceeding what they need to meet that requirement. He stated that they discussed if they needed a dumpster and it was determined with those preliminary conversations with the owner that it was not going to be necessary. He also stated that they do not intend to have twenty yellow carts out there and they are not going to try to get away from having a dumpster by having twenty rollaway carts. He stated that they do not have the storage space for that in the building and storage space is at a premium. He also stated if at any point in time they need more than a couple of yellow and green rollaway carts then they are going to be looking at putting in the commercial grade dumpster. Ms. Moore stated that she worked in a dispensary in the Houghton area for five years and there was a big garbage container in the backroom and they emptied that out once a week. She also stated that there really is not that much waste. She stated the product that they receive comes in the vacuumed packed bags and there is not a lot of packaging. She also stated the packing goes out the door with the customer. She stated that they will not be selling a lot of product that comes with a lot of packaging. She also stated the biggest amount of garbage is going to be what the employees bring with their lunch and toss in the garbage and she really just does not see that as a big issue. She stated as Mr. Treado has said if it is an issue they will get a dumpster and it is not that they are trying to get away with anything. D. Stensaas stated that there are quite a few businesses in the downtown area that have been using green bags and the rollaway containers for quite some time so the containers are a pretty good option if they do not have a lot of trash. A. Ruiz asked if their intent would be to have the containers rather than the green bags because on a personal note the green bags should be shunned in the community and it is much nicer to have those carts. Ms. Moore stated that she would be very happy to get the rollaway carts and she does not prefer the plastic garbage bags either. J. Cardillo asked if there were any members of the public that would like to comment. No one wished to comment so J. Cardillo closed the public hearing.

It was moved by A. Andres, seconded by A. Ruiz and carried 8-0 that after review of the site plan set dated May 4, 2020, with supplemental documentation and the Staff File Review/Analysis for 10-SUP-06-20, the Planning Commission finds that the request meets the intent and requirements of the Land Development Code Sections 54.1403, 54.1402, and 54.628, and hereby approves 10-SUP-06-20 with the condition that an amended site plan is submitted to meet staff comments. Yes: M. Larson, A. Andres, W. Premeau, M. Dunn, A. Ruiz, S. Mittlefehldt, E. Brooks, J. Cardillo No: None

DRAF

T


B. 11-SUP-06-2020 - 420 and 424 N. Third St., and 143 W. Michigan St. – Outdoor Entertainment and Community Events (accessory use) and expansion of existing Outdoor Food and Beverage Service Zoning Official A. Landers stated that staff has reviewed the Special Land Use Permit for outdoor entertainment as an accessory use and an expansion for outdoor food and beverage service located at 420 and 424 N. Third Street, and 143 W. Michigan Street. She also referenced the attached STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for more specific information regarding the Special Land Use application and site plan. A. Landers also stated that she received an item of correspondence that was received after the agenda was released, from Ms. Paula Dick of Arch St., and read it into the record. M. Dunn asked about the history of this. A. Landers stated all of the history is in the agenda packet with the minutes. She also stated basically when they first applied it was a Conditional Use Permit and with any expansions they have to come back to the Planning Commission to get approval. She stated they have had several expansions and now it is a Special Land Use in the new Land Development Code. She also used visuals to show where the original outdoor food and beverage area was and the pergola that was added with the fire pit and they also went through site plan review of demoing a home and putting in parking. She stated what they are proposing is to expand now by adding an addition to connect to a building and expand the outdoor food and beverage area with a new covered performance area for the accessory use of the outdoor entertainment. She also stated that they are asking for a second story deck on the side of the building for more outdoor food and beverage area. She stated per the code you have to be back at least five feet from the lot lines, so they will have to make sure the service area is back 5-feet. J. Cardillo asked if roughly they would lose the first row of seats. A. Landers stated that she believes so but that would be a great question for the applicant. She also stated that it was not on the site plan for her to be able to verify exactly where that falls. J. Cardillo stated that it was not easy to determine. J. Cardillo stated since they originally opened they have done quite a bit of work to manage the sound and the noise issues with the outdoor music so she is not overly concerned about it but do they have any records of noise complaints and is there a long list of noise complaints or have they mostly been able to reduce the number of complaints in the last several years. A. Landers stated unfortunately she would not be able to tell her that and that would be with the police department and she would have to check in them. She also stated she does know from one of the hearings that they had, that was a question that was asked prior to the hearing and they were able to get that information and provide how many complaints. She stated maybe that would be a good question for the owners to answer and they could tell you if that number with the police going to their property has gone down. She also stated if that is information that they want staff to get then that is something she would have to contact the police department for. David Manson, the applicant stated that first he would like to address the noise complaint question. He also stated that Andy and the musicians have made really great strides with trying to mitigate any potential noise complaints from the neighborhood. He stated that he does not have an exact number or timeframe but he believes that they have not received a noise complaint in maybe three years. He also stated that Andy has made sure that if bands are playing outside, they stop by 9:00 PM so that they feel is a pretty reasonable time to cease music in a mixed-use area. He stated because of that he does not think that the neighbors have felt a need to complain. Andy Langlois, the other applicant stated that initially they were on Third Street playing music and moving to the back really seemed to help a lot. He also stated starting out with a business you see the City restrictions of 11:00 PM as being the noise ordinance and you think that you can go until 11:00 PM, but you cannot because they are in an area where other people live so they moved it to 10:00 PM and then realized that they would just go to 9:00 PM and be the early place. He stated since they have done that he thinks it has been for sure two and probably three or more years since they have had any issues and tickets. He also stated that it has been working out pretty well and they do not have any heavy metal bands and it tends to be Jim and Ray type of bands. He stated that it tends to be fairly mellow, but they do have some bands with some drums occasionally, but once again they make sure that they are done by 9:00 PM. He also stated that they have talked to a lot of neighbors about it and made sure that they are ok with it over the years, and it seems to be working out all right.

DRAF

T


Mr. Manson stated they would like to address the letter. Mr. Langlois stated one question was an increase in garbage. He also stated right now they have garbage that is through a dumpster and they have it emptied twice a week right now and they rarely fill it, and they upped it last year because it was busy last summer. He stated that there should not be an issue with that. He also stated about the Covid issues, they have been taking it extremely seriously and at least two rows of duct tape are on the ground right now directing people where they can and cannot go. He stated that they have guidelines printed up and signage that masks are required while standing, and in fact they do not have any indoor seating right now. He also stated that they have increased safety the most that they can to spread people out. He stated that they are taking it quite seriously as they should. She also stated what they have integrated to the pub host duties and greeters that their job is to go through these guidelines with each individual customer and make sure that they understand that they walk through with a mask on, while they are standing, and that they are following the arrows on the ground and that they are sitting in the appropriately spaced area. He stated so far it is good and 98% of the people are really receptive to that and there are about 2% who like to give them a hard time. Mr. Manson stated that they do not have to serve them and they do not have to come in. Mr. Langlois stated by expanding the patio should increase the overall safety and they are excited to do it. He also stated they are just covering the outside areas right now and you can see from the architectural drawing that it is a mirror image of what they currently have and they are pretty much going it flip it around and do similar things without the outside bar, and the fire place is going to be in another location. He stated they are going to have to meet requirements for the railing setback of 5-feet and right now the building itself is 3-feet off of the line and there is a platform up there that is about 1-foot so they might have to bring it in or the other option is to go for a variance. He also stated that is not something that they are looking at doing right now because you cannot access it until they finish the inside of the building that they are going to be working on. He stated they do not have enough cash to do that right now so they are taking everything in phases kind of like they have been approaching the whole pub in general. Mr. Manson stated for the question about the history it has been a long, slow process for them because that is the way that they operate and they do not necessarily always feel like they are going to need to go to the next level. He also stated if you look at those notes there are a lot of piecemeal requests to keep expanding. He stated that Ms. Landers has taught them pretty well by now to throw it all in so they are throwing it all in so they do not have to come in front of the Planning Commission again and ask for another part or a little further part. Mr. Langlois stated what they are looking at doing is the exact thing that they are doing now, they are just looking to do it with some more German beer tables and maybe another fireplace. He also stated that they already play music outside and they would just like to move everybody back a little farther and maintain the same schedule which is typically four or five nights 6

agenda...agenda m arquette c ity p lanning c ommission tuesday, june 7th, 2020 at 6:00 p.m....

Documents